An error of democracy

Page Tools

The Prime Minister, John Howard, continues to insist he has "full confidence" in Australia's intelligence agencies. This should mean the Government is confident it is receiving full, frank and fearless advice. It should not mean Australia's intelligence officers, and other key public servants, are serving up what the Government wants to hear. A disturbing pattern, however, is emerging. At best, this is a picture of a cowed bureaucracy second guessing the Government line. At worst, of a politicised public service massaging the facts. Yet, national security depends on the quality of intelligence. The Government's "we didn't know at the time" defence will continue to raise the same question: why not?

Australia founded its case for the invasion of Iraq on the basis of mainly US intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The information was wrong. Mr Howard has escaped relatively unscathed because this is not generally perceived to be an Australian intelligence failure and because Australia's small contingent of troops has since remained behind the lethal frontline. The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, by contrast, has been politically bloodied over his erroneous prewar claim that Iraq had launch-ready WMD. The Bush Administration remains under intense pressure over its failure to prevent the September 11 attacks, and the escalating US combat deaths in Iraq. Close to 100 US servicemen, and hundreds of Iraqi combatants and civilians, have died this month in circumstances the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, this week admitted he had not anticipated.

AdvertisementAdvertisement

An independent inquiry is under way into Australia's intelligence services on the recommendation of a bipartisan parliamentary committee which found the Government has used intelligence advice selectively on Iraq. There are questions, however, which go way beyond WMD. As Mr Rumsfeld's comments suggest, the US-led invading force was well prepared for the lopsided military battle to topple Saddam, but not the complex task of building something better out of the ashes. What independent Australian assessment was made of the prospects for peace, post-invasion? Given the huge body of available information about the underlying religious, tribal and regional schisms within Iraqi society, was the potential for the occupation to be violently exploited in a post-invasion struggle for ascendancy sufficiently recognised? Or could the actions of the US-led forces themselves trigger popular resentment? This is as much a matter of intelligence as the futile hunt for WMD. So is factoring in Washington's long-standing practice of selectively exaggerating security threats to the US to support other agendas.

The claims this week by the senior military analyst Lieutenant-Colonel Lance Collins, that Australia's intelligence services not only misread Iraq, but failed to warn of a string of events, such as the Bali bombings and the Solomons crisis, are disturbing enough. But Colonel Collins also asserts that they failed to act impartially and professionally. An independent public service is a core pillar of a healthy democracy. Ultimately, this is Mr Howard's responsibility. It is a glib but accurate saying that an error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.

Departure fit for a champion

Shakespeare had us believe that Richard III would forgo his kingdom for a horse, albeit in tough circumstances. Bob Ingham gave up nothing. The poultry kings (brother Jack died last year) built the most impressive thoroughbred stable in the country, holding interests in hundreds of racehorses. With the finest, however, Mr Ingham struck the golden trifecta. The handsome five-year-old Lonhro, bred by the Inghams, has won 26 of his 34 starts and will be charged out at a record first-season stud fee of $66,000. If this racehorse - arguably the best of his era - bows out a winner of today's Queen Elizabeth Stakes at Royal Randwick, he will become only the fourth Australian horse to win more than $6 million in career stakemoney. If things go well at the Inghams' Woodlands Stud, Lonhro could equal that each stud season.

But there is more to the Lonhro story than a recitation of his success or his links to big money breeder-owners. Much more. Like champions before him, Lonhro is the people's horse. Or, at least, he is the champion of those many racetrack and betting shop patrons who have stuck with Lonhro through the ups and ups, urging him on and hoping to share in the financial spoils.

Winners, of course, are winners. Their star qualities shine through their performances; they draw adulation because they distract us, however temporarily, from the mundane and mediocre.

Lonhro is the racing fanatic's racehorse. His turn of speed - the turf expert Bill Whittaker reckons he has not seen a faster finisher at distances of 1400m to 2000m in the past 60 years - is complemented by his intelligence. His regular rider, the thoughtful Darren Beadman, says he learnt from Lonhro the importance of patience and emotion in racing. When all seems lost, his grit, talent and sharpness kick in to beat the odds. This quality - shared with his sire, the great galloper Octagonal - is the stuff that catches in the throat.

Lonhro would probably have remained at the top for at least another year. Early retirement simply ensures Lonhro departs with his status intact, regardless of whether fortune smiles on him today. The expected 40,000 Randwick crowd will cheer him all the way with a farewell befitting a champion of his time. He deserves nothing less.